Can "spirituality" be purely neurological or emotional as atheists choose to interpret the term?

Question

An earlier question quoted "atheists" Dawkins and Harris:

Sam Harris said "We need a positive statement of…spiritual experience,…[though without] any endorsement of divisive superstitions."

Dawkins says he's in favor of "mystical spirituality."

Respondents demonstrated a purely materialistic understanding of the term "spirituality" by explaining it in terms of emotional and neurological experience. However, to the religious, a spirit such as the Holy Spirit is not thought to be neurological or physical in any way. Do not atheists not try to impose a materialistic interpretation on a word which signifies something non-material?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nopotter

Also, are Harris and Dawkins necessarily using the definition of "spiritual" that is assumed by their followers here?

Yes, Bula'ia, you get it! I'm talking about the supernatural when I talk about "spirit" if I mean the term literally, and I suspect Dawkins and Harris are referring to a type of "spirituality" which for many people takes in those examples you described.

Clint, how could you know that?

Answer 1

Hello

This lady does a much better job of answering this question than I do. She and a neurologist just wrote a book "The Spiritual Brain" which points out the absurdity of the position taken by Dawkins, Harris, et al. Their form of reductionist science (what C. S. Lewis called 'nothing buttery') insists that the mind is 'nothing but' electro chemical signals, or 'nothing but' a genetic echo, or 'nothing but' an environmental glitch, or 'nothing but' a ham sandwich.

If that is true, then what makes their thoughts on the subject of any value? Really, think about it for a minute.

If our minds are only electrochemical matter that arrived by random interaction of chemicals throught time - why should we trust the results? More particularly, why should I trust the person who tells me that my mind is an illusion when, quite clearly, he thinks his mind actually exists and is able to think and communicate rationally. In effect he is saying, "Trust me, we can't trust our minds." These guys always assume that they are the exception to the rule.

Writing about the future of science if we discard the materialist assumptions of Dawkins, Harris, et. al. O'Leary says:

"As a result, people who insist that

- computers are going to become conscious - soon!
- apes can write autobiographies with appropriate training
- the mind is a user illusion
- there must be aliens out there because otherwise we would be special (and we "know" we're not special)
- there is a "God spot" in the brain which explains religious convictions and experiences
- there is no free will and you are controlled by your selfish genes

will slowly cease to be treated as authorities by popular media, as they presently are. They will come to be seen for what they in fact are: Materialist cranks flogging up ideas that do not withstand scrutiny or evidence - people whose positions are largely maintained by the organized ridicule or persecution of the holders of better supported alternative positions.

5. Last and best, science may be separated from religion, to the benefit of both. Much that is called "science" in the popular media is simply the metaphysics of materialist atheism, using science as stage props. We will no longer endure experts who claim to know things like "the cave man was unfaithful to his mate so he could spread his selfish genes" Oh, was he now? That expert knows what cave men did in the same way that a witch doctor knows when my ancestors are displeased with me and a local fundamentalist knows exactly what God wants me to do."
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/

Don't be fooled by bad "science" - Follow the evidence!

Dave

Answer 2

Yes, but let's not forget there are advantages to such nuerology.

My belief is that a spiritual person is effected mentally in some way anyway, if this wasn't the case then a person whom could be considered 'spiritual' would be in no way different than you or I*.

The question remains whether this is a 'good' thing or a 'bad' thing.

The answer is purely a matter of opinion, however imo i believe that such experience or 'spirituality' strengthens the individual in ways that otherwise would not otherwise be considered 'realistic' or 'logical'.

Let me provide you an example of what i mean;

A man whom lives out his life in the gutter going from place to place and learning things here and there and trying to lead an honest life in the name of God (the homeless stereotypically spend a lot of time discussing theological issues, i hear), finds himself confronted by a large and relatively strong character whom has served in the military - this character dwarfs the man in terms of strength and discipline - Is it possible to judge whom would be the victor of this confrontation?

The drifter may know some dirty hand-to-hand moves, and kick the stronger man's kneecaps out of place before he can employ his strength, or the larger and stronger man may simply steamroll the smaller using sheer physical dominance.

What it comes down to is experience, and i'll put my faith in a spiritual man over a realist anyday - the spiritual man will fight as though his life depended on it.



*I profess that i do consider myself somewhat spiritually inclined, however it is my psychology that sets me apart from others, not the way i lead my life.

Answer 3

Well, I'm an atheist, but I don't know who any of the people you are talking about are, but I don't read spiritual crap or religious crap, or really atheist crap.

I arrived at my atheism thanks to my own intellect and reading, reading lots and lots, but not any of the crap you quoted. I was always attracted to Greek myths and read them a lot, also, we read them in school. I guess that's not allowed now. I was raised in a Methodist kind of way by a crazy mother, not that her craziness took any religious twist, just an interesting fact.

I wanted magic and mysticism from religion, so hey! There were the Catholics, but they had no real magic; although I admit their spells and words were very moving for a 16 yr. old.

But through all my experience and reading I could not help but notice that from myth to pope to Martin Luther; it was all the same story with different names, like a plagarized book: the risen god, the afterlife, the omnipotent, the virgin, the mother. They are all in every religion, just tweaked to fit current needs.

I grew up and started thinking, critically thinking, and for me the only outcome was atheism. It was either that or make up my own religion and I had seen enough of religions to know that I wanted no part of that. I am no Joseph Smith, not even one of his wives.

But, back to your quesion. I rule out neurological genesis for spirituality because to me it is not physical and nerves are. In my personal experience strong emotions impede spirituality, because to me spirituality is inward and calm, while emotions are spawn of outside, and usually upsetting, even if not negative, influences.

Being an atheist does not mean that one is not spiritual; it just means that one thinks it all ceases with the death of the body: the nerves, the emotions, the spirituality. I believe that when one dies one is just dead and nothing of any of the things that made one an individual being survives.

Answer 4

I doubt you'll find any intence agreemant by Atheists about spirituality.

I have yet to read Dawkins or Harris. They haven't yet sparked much interest for me.

In my mind spirituality is an evolutionary thing. A bonding of mind with nature that it has been part of for billions of years.

Answer 5

Not all Atheists are Reductive Materialists.

I happen to be a very spiritual person--I just don't believe in a being superior (or inferior) to me. Alot of Atheists even lean towards Buddhism.

Answer 6

I don't see why not but being a controversial idea you will get both sides of an on going discussion regardless of what the slippery truth may be.

Answer 7

Dawkins also claim to be a cultural Christian the nut case.

Answer 8

Apparenty through verbal gymnastics, atheists can make any term mean anything they want it to.

Answer 9

When I am deep in prayer, I am clear on things for myself.

A Catholic

http://www.vatican.va

Answer 10

Yes. If someone who is spiritual has a lobotomy then they lose their spirituality.